Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a complex nursing intervention: a human-in-the-loop LLM-Assisted longitudinal and Cross-Case analysis across twelve cardiac surgery centres
4 affiliations
- 1Research Department Anesthesiology and Intensive Care
- 2Department of Health Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Open University of the Netherlands
- 3Department of Health and Wellbeing, Research Group Person-Centered Health and Social Care, Windesheim University of Applied Science
- 4Research Group Personalised Integrated Care, Institute for Nursing Studies, HU University of Applied Science Utrecht
Abstract
Background Implementation of complex nursing interventions remains challenging, with success varying substantially across healthcare settings. Most implementation research assesses barriers and facilitators at single timepoints, limiting understanding of how these determinants evolve. Therefore, we aimed to understand how barriers and facilitators evolve over time during different implementation phases across three categories of implementation outcomes. Methods Following the “Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment” (EPIS) framework, this longitudinal qualitative study examined barriers and facilitators during implementation of the PREDOCS nursing intervention across twelve Dutch cardiothoracic centers from 2016 to 2019. We conducted 252 structured interviews across eight measurement waves with diverse healthcare professionals. Data were systematically coded for barriers and facilitators using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model through a hybrid approach combining Large Language Model (LLM)-assisted analysis with rigorous human verification. Hospitals were categorized into three implementation outcome groups: Implementation (n = 4), Delayed-Implementation (n = 5), and No-Implementation (n = 3). Results Barriers and facilitators evolved systematically across EPIS phases. Motivation remained universally high across all outcome groups throughout all phases. Fundamental knowledge gaps about intervention components during the Exploration phase were present in all three No-Implementation hospitals and absent in the Implementation group. Opportunity-domain factors, specifically the presence or absence of organizational infrastructure, resources, and management support, differed systematically between outcome groups across phases. As implementation progressed, the Implementation group reported a shift in the Capability domain from training barriers to available training and competent staff, a pattern absent in the Delayed and No-Implementation groups. Successful hospitals reported compensatory opportunity facilitators alongside persistent barriers, whereas hospitals that discontinued implementation reported sustained belief in intervention value in the absence of enabling organizational conditions. Conclusions Implementation success depends less on motivation-building than on developing organizational infrastructure to translate intention into practice. Implementation determinants are not static: early knowledge gaps and absence of organizational facilitators functioned as early signals of later failure, and support strategies should therefore be phase-specific and longitudinally monitored rather than assessed at a single point in time.
Related
- General practitioners’ perspectives on barriers and facilitators of the implementation of the ANTIBIORESIST antibiotic stewardship audit and feedback intervention: a qualitative interview study among high prescribers
- Identifying pre-implementation barriers, facilitators and strategies for integrating a co-designed, technology-assisted parenting program within an adult mental health service
- Operationalising the Operational Guidance on Infant and Young Child Feeding in Emergencies: A Narrative Review of Implementation Strategies, Barriers, Facilitators, and Health System Integration in Humanitarian Settings
- Pre-implementation barriers and facilitators to implementing a physical activity guideline for community-dwelling older adults with mild cognitive impairment: a qualitative stakeholder study
- A preliminary qualitative exploration of perceived barriers and facilitators prior to implementation of a pressure injury prevention program in home care: perspectives of care managers in Japan.
BibTeX
@article{jordens2026barriers,
title = {{Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a complex nursing intervention: a human-in-the-loop LLM-Assisted longitudinal and Cross-Case analysis across twelve cardiac surgery centres}},
author = {Yvonne J. Jordens and Lilian Lechner and Myrna Pelgrum-Keurhorst and Roelof G. A. Ettema},
journal = {Implementation Science Communications},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
doi = {10.1186/s43058-026-01043-5},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-026-01043-5},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a complex nursing intervention: a human-in-the-loop LLM-Assisted longitudinal and Cross-Case analysis across twelve cardiac surgery centres
AU - Yvonne J. Jordens
AU - Lilian Lechner
AU - Myrna Pelgrum-Keurhorst
AU - Roelof G. A. Ettema
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/07/01
JO - Implementation Science Communications
DO - 10.1186/s43058-026-01043-5
UR - https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-026-01043-5
AB - Background Implementation of complex nursing interventions remains challenging, with success varying substantially across healthcare settings. Most implementation research assesses barriers and facilitators at single timepoints, limiting understanding of how these determinants evolve. Therefore, we aimed to understand how barriers and facilitators evolve over time during different implementation phases across three categories of implementation outcomes. Methods Following the “Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment” (EPIS) framework, this longitudinal qualitative study examined barriers and facilitators during implementation of the PREDOCS nursing intervention across twelve Dutch cardiothoracic centers from 2016 to 2019. We conducted 252 structured interviews across eight measurement waves with diverse healthcare professionals. Data were systematically coded for barriers and facilitators using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model through a hybrid approach combining Large Language Model (LLM)-assisted analysis with rigorous human verification. Hospitals were categorized into three implementation outcome groups: Implementation (n = 4), Delayed-Implementation (n = 5), and No-Implementation (n = 3). Results Barriers and facilitators evolved systematically across EPIS phases. Motivation remained universally high across all outcome groups throughout all phases. Fundamental knowledge gaps about intervention components during the Exploration phase were present in all three No-Implementation hospitals and absent in the Implementation group. Opportunity-domain factors, specifically the presence or absence of organizational infrastructure, resources, and management support, differed systematically between outcome groups across phases. As implementation progressed, the Implementation group reported a shift in the Capability domain from training barriers to available training and competent staff, a pattern absent in the Delayed and No-Implementation groups. Successful hospitals reported compensatory opportunity facilitators alongside persistent barriers, whereas hospitals that discontinued implementation reported sustained belief in intervention value in the absence of enabling organizational conditions. Conclusions Implementation success depends less on motivation-building than on developing organizational infrastructure to translate intention into practice. Implementation determinants are not static: early knowledge gaps and absence of organizational facilitators functioned as early signals of later failure, and support strategies should therefore be phase-specific and longitudinally monitored rather than assessed at a single point in time.
SN - 2662-2211
ER -